Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review

Abstract

In recent year, a growing attention is dedicated to the assessment of research’s social impact. While prior research has often dealt with results of research, the last decade has begun to generate knowledge on the assessment of health research’s social impact. However, this knowledge is scattered across different disciplines, research communities, and journals. Therefore, this paper analyzes the heterogeneous picture research has drawn within the past years with a focus on the health research’s social impact on different stakeholders through an interdisciplinary, systematic review. By consulting major research databases, we have analyzed 53 key journal articles bibliographically and thematically. We argued that the adoption of a multi-stakeholder could be an evolution of the existing methods used to assess impact of research. After presenting a model to assess the health research’s social impact with a multi stakeholder perspective, we suggest the implementation in the research process of three practice: a multi-stakeholder workshop on research agenda; a multi stakeholder supervisory board; a multi-stakeholder review process.

Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on the instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication,26(1), 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bornmann, L. (2013a). Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone—We should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society. EMBO Reports,13(8), 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bornmann, L. (2013b). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons. Scientometrics,98(1), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, P., Walker, A. E., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010). A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Science, 5(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Research quality framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia (Issue paper). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar

Donovan, C. (2007). The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation,2008(118), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donovan, C. (2011). State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation,20(3), 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, J., & Wagner, M. (2012). Editorial: The challenges and opportunities of sustainable development for entrepreneurship and small business. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship,25(4), 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hanney, S., Packwood, T., & Buxton, M. (2000). Evaluating the benefits from health research and development centres: a categorization, a model and examples of application. Evaluation,6(2), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ippoliti, R., & Falavigna, G. (2014). Public health institutions, clinical research and protection system of patients’ rights: An impact evaluation of public policy. Public Organization Review,14(2), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maredia, M. K., & Byerlee, D. (2000). Efficiency of research investments in the presence of international spillovers: Wheat research in developing countries. Agricultural Economics,22(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, B. R. (2007). Assessing the impact of basic research on society and the economy. In Paper presented at the rethinking the impact of basic research on society and the economy (WF-EST international conference, 11 May 2007), Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Martin, B. R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the’impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation,20(3), 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin and Irvine. (1983). Assessing basic research: The case of the Isaac Newton telescope. Social Studies of Science,13, 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of “open access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13), 2047–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

New Philanthropy Capital. (2010). Social return on investment: Position paper. London: New Philanthropy Capital.Google Scholar

Newby, H. (1994). The challenge for social science: A new role in public policy-making. Research Evaluation,4(1), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Niederkrotenthaler, T., Dorner, T. E., & Maier, M. (2011). Development of a practical tool to measure the impact of publications on the society based on focus group discussions with scientists. BMC Public Health,11(1), 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar